University of Virginia Library

Committee Considers
Demonstration Policy

THE CAVALIER DAILY
dimension

By Bill Fryer
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

The Rotunda is seized. Occupying
students are removed by members of
University Security. Disciplinary proceedings
begin.

As unlikely as the above might seem
to many students, if there were some
kind of seizure or "unruly" or violent
demonstration, who would be responsible
for deciding penalties, if any, for those
involved in the action? The Scheduling
Subcommittee of the Committee on
Calendar and Scheduling has been wrestling
with these problems in trying to
formulate specific rules "to carry out
most effectively the principles of the
President's 4 September statement."

President Shannon's statement that all
uses of University property or space not
by physically destructive, unlawful, or
discriminatory; or disruptive of academic
activities, scheduled events, or normal
University functions or pursuits, and not
with a primarily religious objective or for
meetings of religious groups or societies
has served as the guide for the Committee's
work in this area.

The Committee, chaired by Paul
Saunier who is also the Director of the
Office of University Relations, requested
Peter Low, the Assistant Dean of the Law
School, to help the Committee clarify
several issues.

Unfairness Prevented

First of all, there was some speculation
about whether the scheduling procedure
which now governs students would
also be the guideline for faculty and staff.
Mr. Low stated in reply that "as regards
faculty and staff, it may be that the
principles governing use of property by
these groups should be analogous to the
ones governing students." Since there is
really no set policy in this area, it will be
up to the Committee to make recommendations
in this area.

The Committee also requested Mr.
Low to define terms like "academic
activity" and "disrupt" to help the
members arrive at suitable guidelines for
governing this area of scheduling. Mr.
Low replied that he thought that the
search for concrete meanings of these
terms was both unwise and unnecessary.

He felt unwise, because it would be
time-consuming and cumbersome and
would not really produce the certainty
that apparently is sought. "Unnecessary,
because most of the occasions which will
call for disciplinary action or other
restrictions on use of property will so
clearly fall within the principles enunciated
that the difficult effort to be more
precise will have been a waste of time.

Mr. Low also felt it unnecessary
"because the warnings required by the
system will prevent unfairness while the
normal channels of student discipline —
the Student Judiciary Committee and
ultimately the University Committee on
Students — work out the meanings and
the rough edges as they go along."

According to Mr. Low, an attempt to
restrict administrative discretion in a
University by the announcement of a
wooden and exhaustive set of rules would
be wrong. In other words the workability
of this system depends upon the good
faith of those who administer it.

If there were need for any action, "the
Student Judiciary Committee will be
charged with enforcing any disciplinary
action that is taken for a violation of
these guidelines, and I assume will be
responsive to the argument that their
spirit was not violated in a given instance
even though it may be possible to argue
that the words were. Ultimately, it will be
the Committee on Students that will have
to discharge that responsibility.

Mr. Low felt that process which
involves the interaction of significant
segments of faculty, students, and administration
and which would work out
the precise tolerances of a given situation
would be a much better system.

Judiciary Appeal

The Judiciary Committee shall have
the duty to hear cases on appeal when
requested by a student or student group
who has been disciplined or suspended by
the Dean of Student Affairs for participating
in or inciting a riot or an
unauthorized disorderly assembly.

If the student is found guilty of an
offense in the opinion of the Committee,
he could appeal the decision to the
University Committee on Students. Also,
if the Dean of Student Affairs "believes a
final decision of the Committee is so
inappropriate that it is not in the best
interests of the University, he may within
two weeks after the decision has become
final refer it to the University Committee
on Students for special review.

Committee Review

The University Committee on Students
whose members are appointed by
President Shannon is composed of thirteen
members of the faculty, second-year
law student Terry Gromel and fourth-year
college student Doug Hixon.

The Committee would hold a hearing
to review the case and either agree with
the decision of the Judiciary Committee
or reach a new opinion on the matter. In
rare cases the opinion of the Committee
might even be subject to review by
President Shannon and the Board of
Visitors.